Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to transfer of residence concession in respect of the V.C.R. under Rule 2(6) of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, and whether the denial of the benefit on the ground that the article looked brand new and that the model had been launched only a few months earlier was sustainable.
Analysis: The petitioner produced a purchase voucher dated 23 June 1987 to show possession of the V.C.R. for the minimum required period. The authorities did not disbelieve or reject the voucher, yet denied the benefit mainly on the appearance of the article as new. The finding that the model had been launched only a few months earlier was not supported by evidence. The voucher constituted prima facie proof of possession for the requisite period, and denial of the concession merely because the article appeared new could not be sustained in the absence of a valid evidentiary basis.
Conclusion: The denial of transfer of residence concession in respect of the V.C.R. was unjustified and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary evidence prima facie establishes possession of an article for the prescribed period, the benefit under the transfer of residence rules cannot be refused merely because the article appears new, unless the adverse factual finding is supported by evidence.